He is a good enough player to have success at times in conditions he is not entirely comfortable with. He has played enough cricket to score runs on occasions when it is swinging around or seaming about a bit, but his record in England where he averages 27.80, South Africa 25.47, and New Zealand 20.00 suggest he generally finds the going much more difficult, and that isn't surprising with the way he plays. He has had success in Australia to his credit where there's more bounce around, but his record is so impeccable because once he is in in his own comfortable conditions, he cashes in.

His record in England & New Zealand is a bit misleading - he clearly wasn't fit when picked to play in England in 2011 and averaged a reasonable 40 on his maiden tour there in 2002.

His failures in NZ in 2009 isn't because of the swinging ball. I'm always amused that people qualify Gambhir's success on that tour as due to the flat wickets and Sehwag's failure as due to the swinging and seaming conditions . So which is it ?

His other tour to NZ in 2002 was that rather infamous series in which the batsmen on both sides failed.

I think India's next round of tours in 2013/2014 (to RSA, England, NZ and AUstralia) are gonna be crucial in judging how he is ultimately viewed. .
He has the innate ability (contrary to what a lot of his detractors think) to score runs on picthes where their is some juice for the seamers - he showed it at Bloiemforntein in 2001 , Trent Bridge 2002 and Chennai 2004). Question is how badly does he want the success ?

NZ 2009 was flaaaaaat, and Sehwag failed because he's weird and I think Vettori may have been the one getting him as well, and Vettori loves batsmen who take him on.

Seriously, 2009 had some of the flattest pitches I've seen in this country. We basically rolled out the red carpet for the Indian batting for whatever reason when we should have produced some green tops to show Ganguly what one was and bring the Indian batting down to our level and make it a battle of the bowlers.

Originally Posted by Athlai

Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.

Originally Posted by Dan

in the future where we're all social justice-y Cribb can ride down the street to pick up some raw milk from Coles on a motorised esky while smoking meth, firing an RPG into the air, and carrying the case of British-import Stella he's polygamously (and privately) married alongside a genderfluid Zambian businessperson and a coke-snorting 18-year-old cyborg girl.

Seriously, 2009 had some of the flattest pitches I've seen in this country. We basically rolled out the red carpet for the Indian batting for whatever reason when we should have produced some green tops to show Ganguly what one was and bring the Indian batting down to our level and make it a battle of the bowlers.

dare I say it , but had 2009 been greentops, India probably still would have won given the way Zaheer Khan was bolwing at the time.

What explains then NZ's batting average of 20.65 in that series? Fleming & Co. crying against Nehra and Zaheer?

Idiotic post. Yes, it was a seam bowling friendly series, so what? How does that make it any different from an Indian dustbowl series? They didn't cry, they copped their dismissals on the chin and set to bowling India out for less than we scored. Maybe if Ganguly spent as much time practising his batting as he did complaining he would have scored some bloody runs.

Idiotic post. Yes, it was a seam bowling friendly series, so what? How does that make it any different from an Indian dustbowl series? They didn't cry, they copped their dismissals on the chin and set to bowling India out for less than we scored. Maybe if Ganguly spent as much time practising his batting as he did complaining he would have scored some bloody runs.

Dude, the fact that the winner of that test series could average just 20 suggests that the pitch and conditions had the final say. Those were never proper test wickets, especially the one at Hamilton, and a bad advert for test cricket.